Letter to Joey Aubé, Member of Parliament
who has resigned from the C.A.Q. (government in office).


Dear Mr. Aubé,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I deeply hope that, despite its length and the nature of the ideas it deals with, you will have the perseverance and curiosity to read it in its entirety.

I recently listened, with great interest, to the interview https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=289021382582480&ref=search you gave on March 9. I was both touched and excited by your honesty and common sense – and I fully share your reasons for resigning as an executive member of the youth wing of the CAQ. Your independence of mind and integrity are a credit to you, especially since this is apparently not something your former colleagues have when dealing with the political excesses of their government. I believe, as I think you do, that the current health situation has become a pretext for censorship and disturbing unilateral governance, disguised as virtue, in the name of the common good.

I was left with the strong impression that you have a good sense of what is happening, Mr. Aubé, when you said, and I quote, “…that we are entering a new era, a new segment of the 21st century.” And to that end, I fully support you in your obvious desire to change the old ways of doing politics in order to better respond to this new era that you and I foresee. Although the direction and scope of the changes you would like to make, Mr. Aubé, are not yet clear to me, I would nevertheless like to draw your attention to an issue that seems to go unnoticed. I believe that it represents a major obstacle to the development of society. One of the possible solutions to its resolution would lead us to important questioning.

The current democratic electoral system gives everyone the “right” to vote. A significant number of people in the electorate have very little awareness of the issues at stake during elections. Moreover, this system also allows people who are somewhat senile, or even intellectually impaired, to exercise this “right”, which is questionable to say the least. The result is that the vote of this part of the population nullifies the vote of another part of the population, composed of those who have carefully considered their decision, aware of the long-term consequences of their choice. The end result is that politicians are systematically elected by the portion of the population located between these two parts, which represents the majority of the electorate. This majority usually votes according only to its immediate needs – and it is according to these needs that election speeches will be crafted, regardless of the political party.

Isn’t that a major reason why new ideas and solutions take so much time before becoming established? Hence the appropriate image you used, Mr. Aubé, of politics as a big boat that is slow to change direction. But in fact, isn’t this slowness due to the comfort that this mode of election provides to the elected governments? It only requires them to manage public affairs and problems in a noncommittal way, since to keep power they have to limit themselves to satisfying the security needs of the majority that will elect them again, if all goes well. They don’t care about the innovative ideas that the lucid minority could promote if we didn’t have an electoral system that has as a principle that the voice of the majority represents the voice of reason; hence, perhaps, the growing disinterest of the population for the ballot box, realising that this “turning in circles” doesn’t change anything.

Given this analysis, doesn’t it seem to you, as it does to me, Mr. Aubé, that voting should be seen as a “huge responsibility” and no longer as a “right” acquired on the basis that everyone contributes to the economy through their taxes? Would we give anyone the steering wheel of the car we are in just because they are of age? Could we think of a more “selective” form of democracy regarding voters and candidates to really move society forward to where it should be and for the benefit of all?

I have learned that there are currently research groups, gathered in networks on the Internet, that are looking into how to implement the principles proposed by a new political system called “Geniocracy” www.geniocracy.org, as Geniocracy brilliantly answers the previously mentioned questions as well as their many implications. These networks are composed of men and women from all walks of life and from the scientific, social, medical, political, technological and other fields who share a common goal, to change things for the better without any extremist intentions. Geniocracy, which I wanted to bring to your attention, Mr. Aubé, is part of the new models of governance, which you may be aware of, that are in the making and to which people will inevitably become aware, because people will increasingly talk about it. The day these ideas receive a favourable reception, they will paradoxically have to be adopted democratically. For the moment, however, there is a wind blowing, heralding this new era, that of the exasperation concerning these governments that obey agendas other than the happiness of the people who are opening their eyes.

I can only hope that you have the time to learn about this new political vision and perhaps draw from it some ideas that will make their way thanks to you. The “common sense” that you demonstrated during this interview, Mr. Aubé, and to which the Geniocracy refers through the principles it enunciates, is one of the great qualities that will be sought in tomorrow’s political leaders. I recognize, incidentally, similar qualities in Mr. Éric Duhaime.

On these words, thank you once again for reading me, Mr. Aubé, and I remain at your disposal for any questions or requests you may have.



Martin Hétu,
Communications Leader for the Canadian Raelian Movement